On December 1, 2024, President Joe Biden granted a full and unconditional pardon to his son, Hunter Biden, for all federal offenses committed or potentially committed over a decade, from 2014 to 2024. This unprecedented move has sparked vicious political debates, raising questions about the boundaries of “presidential authority, accountability, and the long-term implications” of such a sweeping pardon.
The pardon document, publicly released, explicitly covers offenses Hunter Biden “has committed or may have committed or taken part in” during the specified period, as written in the statement released by the White House. The scope of the pardon, surrounding years of alleged criminal activities, including tax evasion and firearms violations, undermines the principles of justice and sets a concerning precedent. Legal experts have noted that the breadth of this pardon is unprecedented, with comparisons drawn only to the pardon granted to Richard Nixon, which covered his entire tenure as president from 1969 to 1974.
In response to this decision, I posted on X, “Granting an unconditional pardon for over a decade of potential federal crimes undermines the principles of justice and accountability.” My concern is not rooted in partisan outrage but in the erosion of public trust in systems meant to ensure equality under the law. Accountability must be a cornerstone of democracy, applying equally to all individuals, irrespective of their status or proximity to power.
This act of clemency raises ethical concerns and explicitly contradicts the administration’s earlier stances on justice reform and transparency. President Biden, a long-time advocate for judicial fairness, risks damaging his credibility by decisively intervening in his son’s legal matters. Such actions exacerbate a double standard, where the powerful are shielded from the consequences of their actions while ordinary Americans face the full brunt of the law. This is another example of how justice does not work in the ordinary Americans’ favor. A high-profile pardon like this reinforces the belief that power and privilege determine outcomes, not fairness.
Shaun Maguire, another commentator on X, expressed the frustration of many when he wrote, “I have no issues with the pardon, but I have issues with Democrats lying.” I think, “the issue is not just the pardon. It’s the double standard, the lies, and the constant gaslighting that erodes trust in the system.” Our thoughts reflect a public sentiment transcending partisan divisions: the expectation that leaders and their families be held to the same standards as any other citizen.
From a legal perspective, presidential pardons are an expansive power granted under Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. While this authority is not without precedent, presidents have historically issued controversial pardons, from Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon to Donald Trump’s clemency for allies like Roger Stone, Charles Kushner, and Bill Clinton’s pardon of his half-brother Roger Clinton, it clearly shows the contentiousness of such family or close-associate pardons. The scope and timing of Hunter Biden’s pardon intensifies its contentiousness.
Unlike prior examples, this pardon seems preemptive, extending to potential crimes yet to be fully adjudicated. This raises concerns about the abuse of executive power to shield personal interests and creates a dangerous precedent where presidential power could be used to shield family members from prosecution, raising ethical concerns for future administrations. As an ordinary citizen of the greatest country, you do not let it happen like that.
Proponents of the pardon argue that it spares the nation a protracted legal spectacle that opponents would undoubtedly politicize. I believe this reasoning stalls under scrutiny, as evidenced by what happened in Hunter Biden’s case. “Accountability should not be sacrificed at the altar of expedience,” particularly when the individual is closely tied to the sitting president. By issuing such a pardon, President Biden risks his legacy and public faith in the justice system’s impartiality.
Moreover, the pardon’s political ramifications are far-reaching. It hands the Republican Party a potent narrative for the 2024 elections and reinforces claims of corruption and lack of accountability within the Biden administration. This perception is already being questioned by Rep. Jim Jordan, who pointed out that if Democrats insisted there was no substance to the impeachment inquiry, it raises the question of why President Biden would issue a pardon to Hunter Biden for the very matters under investigation. Remarks like this intensify divisions across party lines and erode public trust in the integrity of government institutions.
In navigating this controversy, it is important to draw the line between the president’s legal authority and the ethical obligations that come with it. While President Biden’s pardon of his son may be constitutionally sound, it fails to uphold ethical leadership, presidential power, and accountability. True leadership demands adherence to principles that inspire trust and confidence across all individuals and institutions, even when such choices are personally difficult. Otherwise, it raises whether the president has lost his moral conviction.
The pardon granted to Hunter Biden represents a decisive moment in American political history. It challenges citizens to struggle with the implications of unchecked executive power and the standards we hold our leaders. As a nation, we must demand accountability not only from those in power but also from those closest to them. Only by upholding these principles can we ensure that justice remains blind and our democratic institutions resilient.
